I have to agree with half.note on this one. The idea that happiness can't exist without sadness, and so on, seems to be a very man-made construction. I would guess that it stems from the way the human body adapts to change. Its conceivable that, if a person's mind persisted beyond their body or their brain, they could experience happiness without ever knowing sadness (although they wouldn't call it happiness and they wouldn't have anything worse to compare it to, it would still be the same feeling).
Take your drug analogy, for instance. The reason being constantly on drugs doesn't work is because the human body builds up a resistance to it, and at the same time a dependence on it. The reason this happens is evolutionary, because adapting to our situation is something that makes us WAY more likely to survive in our niche. However, if we imagine a world in which the human body didn't do this, you could actually be high all the time without every increasing your dosages. Quite a thought, eh? ;)
But emotions are in our brain - we can control them with drugs. They can't and don't exist without a physical brain and the corresponding physical stimuli. So pehaps if we could some how exist outside of our physical body, then yes - but we don't and can't. All our thoughts and feelings are inexorably tied to the physical brain that does respond to drugs like that and does get used to particular stimuli.
That's true for humans as far as I know, but you're assuming a sample of only humans. It's conceivable that a differently built brains could be happy without knowing sadness or, if you're SuperFloree, always high. The existence of these emotions doesn't depend on our brains being exactly the way they are, so the emotions themselves don't have to be tied to a human brain as we know it.
Well, you're forgetting the part where we get NEW bodies. Whatever that means, can be debated, but if we were just going to be spirits floating around the bible wouldn't talk of an old body and a new body. Who knows what that new body is capable of?
stuntdude: I could imagine such a body or brain, but it would never come about evolutionarily because any creature that is "high" 24/7 won't respond in a negative way to things it should and will thus die.
The point isn't that such a brain would come about. The point is that the conjecture that happiness can't exist without sadness is a false one.
But emotions are fundamentally tied to something alive and something alive is fundamentally governed by evolution in such a way that happiness doesn't exist without sadness.
So theoretically you are right, but it would never, ever happen in the real world as emotions cannot exist without brains evolved for survival.
True, but again, that's not my point. I'm only using examples for examples' sake, I'm not actually trying to make a point about specific examples. What I'm saying is, this notion of duality, that something can't exist without its opposite or counterpart, is not true. In the case of this thread, we were talking about heaven and happiness, so I tried to make it a bit more relevant by talking mostly about that.
But in reality it is true. Because in real life happiness clearly does not exist without sadness. I suppose it could be different in Heaven, but I don't believe in heaven, so...
Not everything can't exist without its opposite, so duality doesn't apply to everthing, though. But it does to things like light and dark, good and evil, happiness and sadness.
Quantum: something alive? God is"the god of the living" and he never changes. I think you're grasping at straws with the whole brain issue.
Eh... you guys are making my brain hurt XD Aloso, i think I totally just changed the whole topic of this thread.
Jade: I don't think he's really grasping at straws, just looking at things at a scientific pooint of view. Scientifically speaking, in reality and how we exist right now, duality is needed for both happiness and sadness to exist. However, I doubt heaven follows scienfitic law, so there it could be that happiness exists without sadness. Of course, if you don't believe in heaven, that's kinda irrevelant.
Alright, let's just assume heaven and he.ll don't follow scienfitic law and that happiness can exist without sadness and vice versa. If you go to heaven you get a glorious body, but what heppens if you go to he.ll?
No, quantum, it's not true for any of those things you listed. Just no.
I think you're confusing humans not having a concept for something, with that thing actually not existing. If there's nothing for us to compare something to, for instance if we were all happy all the time, of course we wouldn't know that we were happy, we'd consider it the norm, but we'd still be happy, and we'd still enjoy it. It would still exist, even if we didn't realize it. The universe does not revolve around what us humans know and don't know.
Superfloree, you're missing my point. I get where he's coming from. But he's assuming we WONT have physical bodies in heaven, thus no brain, and therefore emotion cannot exist or something. I'm saying that's not true. We get new BODIES.
Jade: SuperFloree explains my position well. I don't believe in Heaven or God so it doesn't really apply. If I did believe in those things then I agree with you,
stuntdude: Yes, things can exist without humans having a concept for them. Emotions aren't like this though because they are tied to humanity (or other conscious creatures). They don't exist without us and by definition they are human concepts.
Emotions are relative and subjective, so if we were happy all the time that wouldn't be real happiness as our minds would become used to the stimulous. Rather, we'd have no emotions, assuming we were stuck in one "emotional" state. The happiness wouldn't be there.
Yes. The universe doesn't revolve around what humans know and don't know, but emotions are something different. They are fundamentally based on what we know because they are both subjective and human.
OHMYGOD I JUST FINISHED THE PIC I WAS DRAWING AND IM SO HAPPY AND I WANNA LAUGH LIKE A MANIAC RIGHT NOW
If ya wanna see, it's kinda related to this thread anyways:
fc09. deviantart. net/fs71/i/2013/138/a/4/kenny_mccormick__contest_entry_by_vial_of_venom-d65qorz .png
Quantum and Stunt: Dude, you guys both make sense and i kinda agree with both of you ^^;
I mean, if a person was always happy, well then by definiton they are happy. I mean, you just SAID they were always happy.
However, if we're always happy, then the mediocreness (i dont think thats a word) of it will make us actually emotionless, as being happy is our natural state.
So if a person was happy all the time, they are happy by definition, but they're emotionless by relativity.
Jade: Alright, but i still dunno what happens when you go the he.ll. o.o
But happiness can only be defined in the relative way. I just say you're always happy because there is no good way to express that state in english.
Quantum: Okai, lemme see if i can explain this a different way. Who wants to play with colours? ^^
Look at this:
encrypted-tbn0. gstatic. com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT-1FspRf-G9t9TAX-UlwysfmoHb9aVfNoYQxAEelUhFvzN2XBv
What colour is that? Most people will say a light red. Why? Because it is a light red.
Now if we take that colour and put it next to this:
colorcombos. com/images/colors/FFCCCB. png
Now tell me which one's the light red. It's the latter one, right? But does that mean the first red I put up isn't a light red? Of course not. You had defined it before as a 'light red'. So just because the second colour is lighter, that doesn't mean the first colour itself isn't a light red. It's darker than the second red, but it can still be defined as light red.
It's like that with emotions. Okai, so a dude is happy. But the guy next to him is happier. Does that mean the first guy isn't happy anymore? No, it doesn't.
So if a guy is always happy, then he is happy, even if there is no one sad or a "darker red" next to him to be compared to.
I don't know how to clarify what I'm trying to say any more at this point. :/ We may have to agree to disagree about this.
superfloree: Yes, both are light red, but even if a dark red isn't right there to compare to, you're still implicitly comparing it to dark red by calling it light red.
stuntdude: maybe so...
Quantum: Pleh, how do I put this?
Okai, well, back to the emotions thing, what's happening here is being happy and having happiness is two entirely different things. The guy who's always happy has happiness. However, he is not essentially happy as he cannot and does not experience sadness. However, he does have happiness and he does experience it.
So I have a red. Now if everything was painted this red, then everything is red. However, with no blue or any other colour to compare the red to, you cant essentially say that everything is, so to speak, "red" or "redder' than anything else. But everything has red, and is technically, red.